Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P., N/K/A Enlink North Texas Pipeline, Lp v. Andrew Gardiner and Shannon Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580

Background

Crosstex built and operated a natural-gas compressor station on an acquired 20‑acre tract adjacent to the Gardiners’ 95‑acre ranch; the station began operating in 2007.
The station has four large diesel engines; neighbors—including the Gardiners—complained immediately about intense noise and vibration.
Crosstex implemented multiple mitigation measures over several years (hospital‑grade mufflers, partially enclosed building, sound blankets, sound walls, air‑intake silencers), and relied on sound‑engineer testing.
The Gardiners sued (private nuisance, ordinary negligence, gross negligence), amended to allege intentional and negligent nuisance; trial court submitted negligent and intentional nuisance to jury but directed verdict on ordinary negligence.
Jury found negligent nuisance, permanent injury, and >$2M diminution in fair market value; court of appeals held evidence legally sufficient but factually insufficient and remanded for new trial; also ordered leave to plead an "abnormal and out of place" theory.
Texas Supreme Court affirmed remand, clarified nuisance law (definition, injury v. cause of action, liability categories), and rejected allowing the Gardiners’ unpled strict‑liability ("abnormally dangerous") theory on the record.

Issues

Issue	Gardiners' Argument	Crosstex's Argument	Held
What is a "nuisance" under Texas law?	Nuisance is the injury from interference with use/enjoyment of land and may be pleaded as negligent or intentional nuisance.	Same general framing but emphasizing that fault and reasonableness of use matter for liability.	"Nuisance" is a type of legal injury: a condition that substantially interferes with use/enjoyment by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities.
Must plaintiff prove defendant's land use was unreasonable to establish nuisance?	No—must prove the effects of interference were unreasonable; defendant's conduct reasonableness is a separate inquiry for liability.	Argued plaintiff must prove defendant's use was unreasonable (relying on Vestal).	Held plaintiff need only show the interference’s effects were unreasonable; defendant’s conduct reasonableness pertains to whether defendant is liable (intent, negligence, or abnormally dangerous activity).
Under what theories can defendant be liable for nuisance?	Liability may be premised on intentional conduct, negligence, or (in narrow cases) abnormally dangerous/ultrahazardous activity.	Crosstex emphasized negligence/absence of fault and contested strict‑liability theory.	Court reaffirmed three categories: intentional nuisance (subjective intent), negligent nuisance (ordinary negligence principles), and strict‑liability nuisance only for abnormally dangerous activities—mere "abnormal and out of place" is insufficient.
Was evidence sufficient to support negligent‑nuisance verdict and was trial court required to allow amendment to add "abnormal and out of place" claim?	Gardiners: evidence showed substantial, unreasonable interference and Crosstex failed to exercise ordinary care; trial amendment appropriate.	Crosstex: mitigation efforts and expert reliance negate negligence; amendment would assert an unpled strict‑liability theory and lacked evidentiary support.	Court: There was legally sufficient evidence that a nuisance existed and some evidence of negligence (so legal sufficiency upheld), but it affirmed the court of appeals’ factual‑sufficiency remand. It also held the trial court correctly denied the amendment because the record lacks evidence the station was "abnormally dangerous."

Key Cases Cited

Gulf, Colo. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Oakes, 58 S.W. 999 (Tex. 1900) (early statement that nuisance depends on whether use is reasonable under all circumstances)
City of Tyler v. Likes, 962 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1997) (nuisance characterized as kind of damage done—the interest invaded)
Holubec v. Brandenberger, 111 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2003) (modern Texas definition: condition that substantially interferes with use/enjoyment by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance)
Vestal v. Gulf Oil Corp., 235 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1951) (discussed burden/jury questions on reasonableness of use; distinguished by Court)
Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v. Bates, 147 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. 2004) (noting difficulty distinguishing temporary from permanent nuisance; injunctive relief is discretionary)
Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Justiss, 397 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2012) (example of nuisance finding for compressor‑station impacts such as noise, odor, and lights)